Wednesday, March 24, 2010

If the headline didn't make you spew on your keyboard, the story might.

From MotherNatureNetwork comes the review of a book I'll never read. Why? Because using the words "green" and "sex" in the same sentence is just gross.

You drive a hybrid, eat organic, and are passionate about recycling. But how green is your love life?

If you're like me and never once stopped to consider whether your "love life" is environmentally friendly, you can soon learn more about eco-sex. (I won't, but you can if you like.) Stefanie Iris Weiss has helpfully penned "Eco-Sex", to help us all "Go GREEN Between The Sheets and Make Your Love Life SUSTAINABLE", and it will be available March 31.

"...some people are going to make fun of the notion of eco-sex. I expect that."

(Heh. Maybe she's read my blog.)

Her top advice for wanna-be eco-sexuals?

"The No. 1 thing people can do to be an eco-sexual is to have fewer kids, or have none at all," said Weiss, who is childless.

More population control ideology from environmental activists. Great.

But maybe I'm being unfair. Surely, she's a sincere person who cares deeply and is only trying to help save the environment and the world. Right? After all, she plainly states:

"I am a very committed greenie, and I have been a vegetarian for 20 years."

I mean... she advocates a bike ride as an eco-date, biodegradable condoms, and growing your own flowers so as to avoid the environmental costs of florist-shop flowers and their deliveries... And she just looks like a nice lady, doesn't she?

(Photo of Ms. Weiss courtesy of MNN)

What the... Wait just an eco-friendly minute here! That jacket looks suspiciously like dead animal, don't it? And even if it's a very good faux dead animal, it would be made with (gasp!) petro-chemicals... Right?

(In fairness, this happened before the ObamaCare vote... but if you think it isn't a glimpse of what's to come, including the whining union apologists, you're deluded.)

On February 7, a Pittsburgh man died at home after ten calls to 911 failed to bring the EMS services he needed. According to the AP story, Curtis Mitchell and his common-law wife Sharon Edge made their first calls for help in the early hours of February 6. Help never came.

"I'm very angry, because I feel they didn't do their job like they supposed to," said Edge, 51. "My man would still be living if they'da did they job like they was supposed to ... They took somebody that I love away."

This was in the middle of "Snowmageddon", which dropped over 20 inches of snow in Pittsburgh. But according to the city's public safety director Michael Huss, it's no excuse.

"... You get out of that damn truck and you walk to the residence," Huss said. "That's what needed to happen. We could have carried him out."

But it's not what happened. Instead, Mitchell died on his couch. And now the EMS crews involved are facing punishment after an investigation into their dereliction of duty.

According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette story, at 5:50 am, an ambulance was four blocks from Mitchell's house... waiting for him to walk to them. By 6:09, crew chief Josie Dimon was tired of waiting.

"He ain't (expletive) comin' down, and I ain't waitin' all day for him," she told a colleague, crew chief Kim Long, at the dispatch center. "I mean, what the (expletive), this ain't no cab service."

And the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that Ms. Long, who had spoken several times with Edge, not only failed to relay to the EMS crew that Mitchell was too sick to walk, she failed to request a four-wheel-drive vehicle to reach the scene. She did at some point advise Mitchell to take a bus. At another point during the storm she advised the mother of a two-year-old to walk for help as well.

The morning of February 8, Edge made her last 911 call. To let them know Mitchell had died. While the firefighters dispatched to the house managed to arrive in only two minutes, the body of Curtis Mitchell lay for five hours on the couch before personnel from the medical examiner's office arrived to transport him.

Now, three of the EMS workers involved will be punished, with Josie Dimon - who doesn't work for a (expletive) cab service - facing termination. And their union president, Anthony Weinmann is squealing about it.

"We believe this (punishment) is completely unfounded and inherently wrong," said Weinmann, president of the Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics, Local 1. "It is quite obvious that the city was ill-prepared for the snow disaster. The administration in charge of public safety did not put the employees of the City of Pittsburgh in a position to carry out their responsibility."

sigh...

First, let me just say: Snow disaster my ass. That's a lame excuse, don't buy it. I live right outside of Pittsburgh. It's not like that 20 inches of snow fell in one great plop. And I saw emergency vehicles in my own area, which is more rural than downtown Pittsburgh by far. Also, the fact that the shiftless heartless Ms. Long wanted Mitchell to take a city bus strongly suggests that at least some traffic was moving in town. This is further proven by the fact that firefighters were able to reach the Mitchell home in two minutes. Why the hell didn't the EMS workers call the fire department for help? Or - as their own public safety director mentioned - get off their asses and go to Mitchell?

So... after two days, over a dozen calls back and forth between the home and the 911 call center, and several calls cancelled because a man sick enough for an ambulance was too sick to walk to that ambulance, a man dies. The woman who had to watch him die then had to sit for hours with his body before it was collected. And the union would have us believe the EMS staff are the victims of the story.

Get ready for it, folks. If we can't get ObamaCare repealed, this is just a preview of what's to come for all of us. Lack of services, and unions (now elevated to a higher class than the rest of us, under the SEIU administration) who defend the indefensible.

Monday, March 22, 2010

I haven't blogged about the ObamaCare vote. I couldn't. I didn't even look much at the news and blogs until this evening. I'm heartsick. It seems... almost... not real.

I'm not alone. I see similar reactions from others. From Russ at That's Right:

I for one really haven't even absorbed the full implications of this usurpation, despite having been intimately involved with it for over a year now; I just never actually thought it could happen. Not here. Not this way.

I guess I kept thinking, right up until the voting, that nothing as wrong as this could happen here... that this abomination would not survive... that this morally deformed bastard child of a raped democracy would be stillborn rather than live to devour the liberty and lifeblood of America.

I was wrong. And, to be blunt, it sucks. What a sad day for our Country.

But I saw a couple of things out there in the blogosphere that made me feel a little... if not "better", then at least "more focused"... or maybe just "less shellshocked".

First, from HotAir, Doctor Zero has a piece reminding us "What Freedom Demands". Go read the whole thing, because it's fantastic. I loved this bit:

This radiant idea has burned through all the bloody clouds of the last three centuries: you are not clay to be sculpted by the will of another. You are not a racially inferior inconvenience, to be marched into a concentration camp. You aren’t a class enemy to be exiled by dictators. You are not a disposable cog in the machinery of collectivist economics, or a mouth to be starved by the failure of collective agriculture. You are an American, and through a dereliction of their duty as elected representatives, the Democrats have forced you to choose whether you will retain the full measure of the honor and dignity your Constitution asserts for you.

And from Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, a "Pep Talk" that gets right to the point:

But it's the morning after, and your mourning should be over.

--snip--

So shake off the gloom, get your asses in gear, get over it, and get to work continuing to fight the worst government policies "since the Great Depression."

Saturday, March 20, 2010

I generally enjoy Riehl World View. Dan can be brash, but that's what I like about him. Today, however, I read something there that I completely disagree with. More, I think he's advocating the opposite of what we should do:

But as so many libertarians and moderate Republicans have had their say about social cons over the years, you might want to consider that, they could be the only thing standing between you and Obama Care just now.

You're going to have to reach deep inside you, and come up with some good old fashioned compassion and tolerance for your fellow man - and never mind if he's wearing mascara. If he's supporting the candidate that will defend the Constitution, he's one of you.

I'm not advocating purging anyone. It's not my Party to begin with... BUT, I can not accept that libertarian conservatives should be forced to accept candidates who pay lip service to smaller government principles, while fully backing the intrusion of the federal government into our private lives - which is the case with many social conservatives.

I want candidates who will serve their constituents while adhering to the Constitution. Period.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Altmire confirmed that he has decided to vote no in a telephone conversation with KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano.

In the final push for Obamacare passage, Jason Altmire (D-PA) has been besieged by his own colleagues in the House and in DC, activists from both sides of the argument, and his own constituents as we fought for his attention through emails, phone calls, and rallies. The WSJ reported:

A recent poll in his district asked the straightforward question, "Do you generally support or oppose the reform plan?" Precisely 29% support it. Conversely, 60% believe it will raise their health costs, 72% believe it will raise the deficit, and 68% believe it will cause their taxes to go up.

“I really am trying to be thoughtful,” said Altmire, D-4, McCandless Township. “The number one factor is where my district is (on health-care reform), and my district is overwhelmingly against it at this point.”

--snip--

“They have great concerns about this bill,” he said. “If I vote no, it’s going to be because a great majority of my district doesn’t support this bill.”

Today, he announces that he has listened to his voters. Thank goodness, because yours truly is one of many who have sent email after email while listening to the busy signal from his office phones. (Thank you, Organizing for America, for helping to make sure that when it mattered, I could not get through to my elected representative.)

From the statement on his website - emphasis mine:

"I ran for Congress in large part because I believe we need to find a way to bring down the cost of health care. I also ran for Congress with a simple promise: I would do my best to represent my district and to give western Pennsylvania a voice in Washington, not the other way around.

--snip--

It has become clear that the vast majority of my constituents want me to oppose this bill.

--snip--

The politically easy vote would have been to vote with my party. But I was notsent to Congress to take the easy way out or to vote the way they want me to vote in Washington. I was elected to represent my district and give western Pennsylvania a voice in Congress. I strongly believe that a vote in opposition to the health care bill is consistent with the views of the district I represent, and is the correct vote based on the impact of the bill on my constituents and the overall health care system."

This is exactly what I want in a person elected to represent me. When Altmire voted against the original House bill, there were insinuations that he was "allowed" to, because Nancy Pelosi already had the votes she needed. This can not have been an easy decision... but it was the right one.

Thank you, Jason Altmire... for doing your job. I'll keep it in mind when you come up for your next "performance evaluation" in November.

I had to laugh reading his answer. Why? Not at him personally... but because he is taking the "Yes" side of this question, and he starts off like this:

This question is trickier to answer than it appears. Because it assumes that any vote could be wasted. The simple answer to that question is, “No, a vote that is cast is never wasted.”

My own gut reaction to that question has always been a resounding "Yes! It's a waste! Worse, it's a vote for the opposition!"

But he went on to make a sound argument for why it is a wasted vote... and I'll now do my best to present why it is not a wasted vote. Since that answer is not the one I would have given if asked even a short time ago, I've had to do some soul searching (not to mention some Google searching) to come up with a response.

From Don:

The answer lies in what the electorate wishes to accomplish. Change of ‘regime,’ be it Democrat OR Republican; or more specifically, change of ideology in either party can only come about via infiltration and usurpation of said party.

This makes sense. In a sane world, it might work. But in what time frame? Realistically, we can only be thankful right now that the progressives haven't been able to force their agenda of change on the schedule they'd hoped to. A bottom-up infiltration of an unwilling and aware entity could take decades... if it succeeds at all. And if I may speak just for myself, I don't care if we ever change the ideology of the party. Party means little to me, personality and principle mean much more. Just bring me better candidates.

Some would point to the NY-23 debacle as an example of why you should not vote third party. From DefenseMechanism:

That said, the split in the Republican vote between the Conservative Party candidate and the turncoat RINO, who dropped out of the race and threw her support behind the Democrat, gave the left-wing party of big government and restricted individual freedom the win in the congressional election.

I think it proves instead the point I'm trying to make. The trouble with NY-23 wasn't knowledgeable voters resisting a RINO liberal and breaking for the third party candidate. The problem was an arrogant Republican Party that ignored those voters, then sent Newt Gingrich to tell the common folk what was best for them. Had the Republican establishment thrown their support behind the popular and desired conservative candidate, Hoffman and the GOP would have both won - as would the voters.

I guess if you want to believe in changing the Party, a third party vote may seem like a waste. But if you're like me and believe the Party can't - or rather won't - be changed, then a third party may be the only way to go. It's got to come down to what you want to stand for come election day...

I, for one, have grown weary of choosing the lesser evil. Or the evil lesser, whichever the case may be. And I'm coming to agree with an essay at NolanChart.com, the site where you can take the famous political quiz. From the piece:

Is voting for a third party candidate wasting your vote? I can't tell. If you cast your vote in hopes of turning a third party into a viable national party, yes, definitely. You are ignoring reality. If you cast your vote because no other candidates represent you then no, your vote isn't wasted.

That's what it's coming to for me. I'm going to vote for the person I think is best for the job, and never mind the Party choices. Will it reform the Republicans? I doubt it. But if they lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives like myself breaking for the third party, perhaps they'll start looking for more appropriate candidates. Sadly, I think losing more elections - or the threat of such - might be a more effective goad toward change than trying to work our way in and change them from the ground up.

In closing, I'd like to leave you with wise words from President John Quincy Adams:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

Don't get me wrong. I couldn't care less if people want to lead a vegan lifestyle. Hey, more bacon for me. But the militant vegans who would force us all to give up animal protein bring out my inner predator. I've even blogged about them once... maybe twice... OK, a lot.

Well, it seems in addition to all that, the militant veggie-crunching whackjobs aren't above turning on their own. And apparently (big surprise) their fellow humans aren't as deserving of compassion as the animals they care about so deeply.

Keith said her values are similar in most ways to those of her attackers. She believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change.

Which means she might deserve to be pied, right? I mean, even yours truly defended Peta (which hurt... seriously, it caused me physical and mental pain) against a charge of terrorist activity when they pied a Canadian official while protesting seal hunting. So why am I bothering to blog about this pie?

The Peta activists used a tofu pie. While that's clearly a crime against taste, it struck me as otherwise harmless. The anarchists, on the other hand, used a cream pie... laced with hot pepper. You know, the ingredient in pepper spray. That, in my humble opinion, elevates this to an act of assault.

(I have to admit I'm curious how these assholes feel about actual holocaust deniers. You know, the kind of holocaust that ended with millions of murdered innocent humans. Somehow I doubt they would muster the same emotions. Anyway, back to the point.)

Somebody in the audience caught the pie attack on video:

Did you notice... the folks in the front row had no reaction at all. Their shoulders don't so much as twitch when it happens. Apathetic, involved -- or both?

These are the people who want to preach against cruelty? These are the folks who are so filled-to-overflowing with empathy that they can't bear the thought of an innocent creature suffering? These are the same high and mighty jerkoffs who have evolved such an intense level of enlightenment that they feel entitled to make choices for the rest of us?

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The Daily Mail has some amazing high detail shots of an eagle chasing - and catching - a starling in mid air. This small copy doesn't begin to do it justice, so you should really go check out the full-size shots.

And it brought to mind another picture I'd seen of a hunting eagle. While the bald eagle in the above pictures was more successful in its hunt, it's got nothing on this golden eagle when it comes to sheer chutzpah...

That's right... this eagle tried to bring down a deer.

Again, the full-size shots from Chicago Wildlife News are more impressive than this tiny copy, so go check them out, too. But the best part of the golden eagle story is this quote:

"From our point of view it's real ballsy, but from the eagle's perspective, I believe he really thought he could do it."

While I was not able to go to DC for the Code Red Rally (although I can promise, I was there in spirit and heart), I was happy to see that my fellow blogger and friend - Russ from That's Right - not only made the trip... he managed to get himself quoted by CNSNews!

Cote said if the bill passed with a mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance, he would not comply.

“If there’s a mandate, I can tell you this — my own form of political protest – I won’t do it and I’ll be a test case if I have to,” Cote said. “I wouldn’t pay the fine either. I’d make them throw me in jail.”

You won't be alone, pal. That was my first thought after hearing about the mandate. I have a feeling if they actually try to force the issue, they won't have enough room for all of us in the jails. We can use the Cloward-Piven systemic overload strategy on them!

"You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy,'" Hayworth said. "Now how dangerous is that?"

Dangerous? Seriously?

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it -- "

And then he goes on to be... well... absurd. Emphasis mine.

"I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse. It's just the wrong way to go, and the only way to protect the institution of marriage is with that federal marriage amendment that I support."

So. Another "conservative" who is perfectly content, nayneigh happy, to expand the federal government's overreach when it comes to personal morality. It shows that this statement on his website is a bald-faced lie:

J.D. believes the United States Constitution is a document of limited and enumerated powers, and that the rights not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the States and the people.

First, a reminder. The debate question is here, from moderator Steve at Motor City Times. Also moderating, The Classic Liberal. Punditry at That's Right and Mind Numbed Robot.---------------------------Hoooo boy... As I sit to type this, I'm bracing myself for the flaming to come. I'm about to take on one of the conservatives' sacred cows.

"Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology."

While many conservatives seem to venerate Ronald Reagan, I have a different opinion - and it doesn't mesh with his own words quoted above. While Reagan, like most politicians, has said and done things I do agree with, in some ways he is as guilty of big government overreach and social engineering as the worst progressives.

Remember, it was President Reagan who hugely escalated the "War On Drugs" which has wasted more tax dollars and imprisoned more non-violent citizens than almost any policy in American history. Reagan brought us federal drug sentencing guidelines. It was Reagan who brought us the "Anti Drug Abuse Act", which established a death penalty for drug "kingpins". Reagan also gifted us with the "Federal Bail Reform Act", which allows some drug defendants to be held without bail. Where is small government in this?

Further, it was Reagan who established the Office of National Drug Control Policy and created the office of "Drug Czar", a position and office that has grown more powerful with nearly every administration since. When you consider the seizure laws that have been born of our drug policies, you can't begin to defend Reagan or this office he created as conservative.

This is the same Ronald Reagan who sat silent for SIX YEARS as the AIDS epidemic began and spread like wildfire. Why? Because like many so-called conservatives, homosexuality offended his sensibilities. In a statement about AIDS education, Reagan said:

"Let's be honest with ourselves: AIDS information cannot be what some call 'value neutral,' " said the President, who rarely has spoken about the disease in public. "After all, when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons?"

So we have from President Reagan a sterling example of a conservative who allows his own moral beliefs to affect policy - at the cost of many, many thousands (now millions) of lives.

I agree with Don that we have seen third party candidates "throw a monkey wrench" into elections, so to speak - remember I admitted I've never voted third party over this belief - I do NOT agree that the Republican Party (or many conservatives) are going to abandon this mindset. This belief that smaller government is a good thing until it comes time to control private behavior is entrenched, and it is what has scared off many moderates and independents.

If "true" conservatism is for smaller government and less federal intervention across the board, than not even Reagan was a "true" conservative. And if we can find some true conservatives, I'll vote for them regardless of their party affiliation - or lack thereof.

She rants goes on to demonstrate the unfairness by pointing out that Markos Moulitsas is a father (as are many bloggers) and nobody is making an issue of that. I'd like to point out to her that his website is called The Daily Kos, not the Daily Daddy or DaddyKos. She goes on (and on, and on) wondering about the NYT reporter:

Did she try to find out how many attendees were women with professional degrees and careers?

I dunno. Did she? And did any of the bloggers have names like "Dr. Blogger" or "Professor Pundit"? Or did you all have cutie-pie names like "PunditMom" and "MOMocrats"? I mean, let's be fair here. When I set up a blog, I got to choose a screen name to use. I chose one that made a joke when combined with my blog name (and had a tattoo connotation that's another, private joke). Maybe some folks aren't partial to it - but I chose it, I like it, and I'll live with it. I find it hard to believe her screen name was forced on her simply because she has reproduced, and so I can't see why she should be complaining about being "marginalized" as something when that's how she chose to self-identify.

Maybe if PunditMOM doesn't like the way mommy bloggers are perceived, she should have put herself across more professionally, and less cutesy. I freely admit that some people take things differently from a woman's perspective, and that women bloggers may have to work harder to be taken seriously... but it would be helpful if they would take themselves more seriously first.

It's time for another installment in The Conservative Blogger Debates!

This time, yours truly will be up first. While I'm not convinced I'm an expert on the topic at hand, I do have an opinion. (I know... I have lots of those.) And since - even if I botch it - it won't be the first (OR last) time I make a jackass of myself... Onward!

Some people think, long term, that a true Conservative 3rd party is necessary, because the Republicans have proven only slightly better than Democrats when they were in power. The thinking goes, we are never going to change Washington, so why bother voting in the Republicans.Other say that we need to refocus the Republicans because if we actually form a 3rd party, we are guaranteeing that the left will win election after election.The question is what should the focus of Conservatives be going forward, a revitalized Republican party or a true Conservative party?

This question hits close to home for me. Readers of this blog know I've struggled with ideological identity, and that I eventually held my nose and changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican. Why? Because I was tired of choosing between two (usually bad) options presented to me by the established parties, and I wanted a greater say in the eventual candidates so as to have more influence on the eventual winner. Basically, I was choosing option "B", trying to help refocus the Republican Party.

I'm beginning to believe I've been looking at it all wrong.

The Republican Party as an entity has no interest in being refocused on smaller government and basic Constitutional principle. On the contrary, it is deeply invested in continuing along the path of larger government and consolidation of power. A reading of "A Moderate History of the GOP" by fellow blogger TheCL is both enlightening and heartbreaking. The Republican Party has a vested interest in expanding not only the government, but itself.

...the GOP was able to entice its choice candidate, former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, to take on the two-term incumbent.

I'm so happy for the Republicans that they were able to "entice" a career-long employee of the public sector to try channeling it into politics. How wonderful that they've located a candidate that has a penchant for wasting millions in taxpayer money doing little more than making a political name for herself. Sounds like a politician already, doesn't she?

So... while I registered with the Republicans to try to help change the party, I'm coming to learn they just don't want my help because they don't want to change. Pretty discouraging for a first foray into partisan politics, no?

I spent decades an a registered "Independent", yet I have never once voted for a third party candidate. Why? I was one of those who believed that a third party vote is a wasted vote. So each election, I would almost literally hold my nose while voting for whichever candidate I thought I could tolerate. I've never voted for a candidate I truly loved... not even enough to put a bumper-sticker on my car.

When my oldest child came of age to vote and described his political leanings as "Libertarian" I was so proud. And then I told him that while I understood and could relate, he should not consider wasting his vote on a third party candidate. Unlike me, he was unwilling to choose the least awful of the two major candidates, and instead chose not to vote at all. I see now that I did him, and our country, a disservice with my well-meaning advice.

I'm now coming to believe that the only solution may be a conservative third party. To be honest, I don't much care at this point what they call themselves. Be it the Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, The TEA Party, or even the We've-Had-Enough-Of-Your-Collective-BS Party... Anything but the two we've been forced to pick between. They're exactly the same anyway. In the words of Will Rogers:

"The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other."

We need to send a message. We need to demand candidates, of whatever party other than the established two, that will vow to adhere to the Constitution and shrink the ever expanding federal government. No new "contracts" or "Mt. Vernon" nonsense. Each politician must read - and adhere to - the Constitution.

If a few thousand of us (or a few hundred thousand) try this, we'll be written off as "protest votes" that were wasted... Or worse, told we threw the election to the opposition. But if millions of disaffected Americans were to ignore the Party candidates and vote for a true conservative, it would force them to reevaluate their ways.

And maybe we can get a few decent politicians in DC. That's change I can believe in.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Australian fisherman got a shock when they tried to reel in a fish that was being chased by a saltwater croc - who tried to follow his dinner right into the boat!

Good thing Mr. Croc is an Aussie... I'd hate to be the one who had to explain to him that President Obama frowns on his favorite pasttime.

This story does bring to mind a question. What would Peta say? Would the fishermen be heroes, for saving the "Sea Kitten" from the jaws of death? Or would they be double dicks for netting said "Sea Kitten" while denying Mr. Croc (who doesn't appear to be a vegan) his meal?

Sergeant Jene Newsome (USAF) has been discharged for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Why is this particular case news? Because Newsome didn't tell anybody. She was "outed". Per the article:

The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

Like that? The cops saw a marriage certificate in her home, and felt it was their moral duty to report Ms. Newsome's sexual orientation to the Air Force. Not outraged yet? Try this:

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP.

So we have police officers literally staring in the windows of a private home, and making reports to the military based on what they see.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

There's a post up at Legal Insurrection about the new "Coffee Party", one liberal's answer to the TEA Party movement. Professor Jacobson has some interesting background on the organizer Annabel Park that's worth checking out, and quotes her (from the NYT) as saying:

“We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation... "

I've been thinking about this "Coffee Party" since I saw the first news stories. I think it is, in actuality, a perfect analogy for the state of American politics. Stay with me here a sec...

Now, accuse me of generalization or stereotyping (I don't really care. It's my blog.) but to my mind, Annabel Parks and her fellow liberal activists strike me as the type to prefer chain-brand, designer coffees that have half a dozen hyphens in the title - and a price tag of over $6 a cup - which are served up by people who would sneer if addressed by the title waiter or waitress.

Anyone who could justify such an expense on a regular basis probably sees nothing wrong with the same lack of financial priorities on the part of their government.

On the other side of the coin, you have folks like myself - and probably the bulk of TEA Party activists. Gimme a cup of plain black coffee (or tea) at my local diner for under a buck (with free refills!), served up by a waitress who smiles and calls me "Hon"... and I'll spend the money I've saved on something a lot more important than my morning java.

Turns out, conservatives don't agree on everything. One area of contention is America's handling of the War on Terror, and its effect on our foreign policy.

Today, two conservative bloggers (who happen to be great friends of this blog) will be continuing their head-to-head in what we believe is the first multi-blog, multi-round debate of its kind.

Once again... it's on.

Round 2 of the Conservative Blogger Debate begins now.

Here's our second round question:

A lot of the controversy over the war, particularly in Iraq, stems from the fact that our actions were pre-emptive.

With respect to pre-emptive military action, please explain what you consider an acceptable threshold for American action. For example: Should we wait until an attack has been launched but not yet struck (re: Paul) before acting? Should we act when we have "reasonable suspicion" that another country or entity is actively planning violence against us? Should we act against any state or nation that we know wishes to cause us harm, before they have the opportunity to organize an act of violence against us?